Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today is a particularly important day. No, it is not my birthday, and it is not my mother's birthday. This is a day that so many of us have looked forward to. Over my right shoulder is the other member of Parliament from Kamloops, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. I stand before this House with tremendous pride.

For those who do not know, I was a prosecutor before I was elected here. Most people have heard that far too many times, I know. One of the things I mostly prosecuted was Internet offences against kids. The term “child pornography” disgusted me. Children cannot consent. It is sexual abuse. Pornography depicts consenting adults.

In 2021, when I was running, I said my first order of business would be to change that law. I stood on doorsteps saying we would change that verbiage. When I gave my first speech in the House, I spoke about that. I spoke about a number of other things, but I called upon this House to do it. With my colleague and friend, I drafted the bill and he presented it. He sponsored the bill and, together, it navigated through the House of Commons and the Senate, and it received royal assent on October 10, 2024, one year ago today. That means that today the term “child pornography” disappears from the Canadian legal lexicon. It is called what it is: child sexual abuse and exploitation material. I am profoundly proud of that today.

Before I begin, I want to recognize Walter Behnke of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, an exceptional individual who has given so much. I appreciate all that he has done. I thank Walter for his tremendous contributions to our democracy.

I also want to highlight Daniel Martin and Karen Martin, two people who have contributed tremendously to the vitality of the democracy that is Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Daniel is a navy veteran, somebody who cares deeply for the flag, deeply for his country and deeply for others. The same goes for his wife, Karen, who I know volunteers as a lawyer. People think that lawyers are just there to make money. She actually retired at a relatively young age and still gives back to young lawyers. She still volunteers in any way she can. I thank them for what they have done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and for their tremendous contributions and assistance to me.

We are speaking here to Bill C-11. The crux of Bill C-11 is about sexual offending in the armed forces. The bill has two elements of the debate that I would love to raise. The first element of the debate is the colossal failure when it comes to sexual offences, particularly sexual offences in the military, but that is actually just symptomatic of the tremendous failure of the current Liberal government when it comes to sexual offences, period. The other issue, then, is, what do we do with it?

At the outset of this speech, I spoke about my experience prosecuting sexual offences against children. Most of those involved the Internet, but I also prosecuted a number of sexual offences, and I will say this: Victims who experience sexual trauma, at whatever age but particularly at a young age, live a psychological life sentence.

Let us make no mistake about this. The fact that the Liberals have not legislated on this is on their hands. The Harper government legislated on sex crimes, drugs and guns. The Liberals have repealed legislation on guns. We saw that in Bill C-5. The Liberals have legislated with respect to drugs. We saw that extensively with conditional sentence orders. They have not legislated on sex crimes. If the Liberals are so ideological, why will they not address sex crimes?

Perhaps I am getting animated, but if there is something to get animated about, it is that there are victims each and every day who walk with demons they do not see but that they feel and hear. They carry this pernicious offending, particularly against children, although it happens to adults too, for the rest of their lives, and the Liberals have not legislated on it. Someone can still commit a sex offence against a child and serve house arrest.

Robbery is the taking of property by force. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Sex assault is the taking of dignity and consent by force. The maximum sentence is 10 years. If someone takes a child's innocence, it is 14 years, but not to worry, house arrest is still an option.

When I get up here to speak about the military and sexual offending within the military, and when I get up to speak about sex offences generally, I am appalled at what we have done, or failed to do. It is actually even worse when we know of a problem and sit idle in Parliament.

I put forward Bill C-299 to add life imprisonment to sexual offences and put most sex offences on par with property offences. I was heckled when I introduced that bill. Then we wonder why we are in the state we are in where this insidious offending happens, completely under-reported. If we think it is under-reported in the military, I am sure it is just as under-reported in society. Myths and stereotypes abound: “Who will believe me?” These are the problems, and they have been perpetuated in the military by this House's inaction.

I challenge the Liberals across the way. I will try to look each and every one of those who are here in the eye and question what we are doing here. Why are we sitting here? We are talking about a really nuanced subject. We are talking about transferring investigative authority and prosecutorial authority to civilians in the prosecution service. That is something we have to recognize as an issue. Prosecuting sex offences is not easy, and I do not say that to pat myself on the back. I say that because it is something I had to learn to do. Investigating sexual offences is even harder.

I came across something recently. A police officer said that a victim had not said no. For those watching at home, it is not “no means no”. It is only “yes means yes”; that is it. These are the issues we are dealing with, and that was from a member of a police force that was not a military police force. We need widespread education, but if I can underscore one thing in this speech, it is that this House has failed when it comes to sex offences. We should all be ashamed.

We as Conservatives have faced push-back because we want mandatory minimums for an offence for which the victim is serving a psychological life sentence. People will say that it failed in the Harper era. It failed in the Harper era because all we needed was a safety valve to say “except in exceptional circumstances”. That is it. I implore one of my Liberal colleagues, Conservative colleagues, Bloc colleagues or anybody else to put that forward.

If there is one thing we should be prepared to do, it is to send people to jail when they hurt people sexually, especially in the military. My commitment to victims is this: For anybody who touches a kid, if I am in a position to legislate on it, I will not take my foot off the gas pedal until those offenders see the inside of a jail cell for a very long time.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right; we are concerned about a lack of judges, a lack of Crown prosecutors across the country right now, and certainly in provinces. Time after time, cases are being pleaded down or in many cases completely thrown out because they hit the Jordan framework.

If the federal government is serious about ensuring that victims within our Canadian Armed Forces receive the that justice they deserve and that this country should be providing to them, they need to be stepping up with resources to scrap their soft-on-crime Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 laws and putting additional resources into our courtrooms to ensure that the cases are heard in a timely fashion so we actually deliver justice for victims in this country.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this chamber to put some words on the record about Bill C-11. This piece of legislation is of national importance. It is well overdue given the time that has elapsed since the recommendations came forward in the initial report, which I believe was commissioned by a Conservative government, on the heinous acts and actions within our Canadian Armed Forces. It is past time that we address these issues in a serious way.

The bill would impact my constituency of Brandon—Souris quite closely. I very proudly represent the hard-working Canadian Armed Forces personnel stationed at Canadian Forces Base Shilo, which includes the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the 1RCHA and the many other serving and civilian personnel who operate that base, which has a huge impact. There are over 1,100 employees in total, which is significant in western Manitoba. I am really proud to represent those folks, first as their member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and now here in the House of Commons.

From a constituency service perspective, issues around sexual transgressions and sexual assaults within the military come to my constituency office far too frequently, as do the impacts of the lack of services that should be available to many who experience such devastating actions from their colleagues, their spouses or anyone else who chooses to perpetrate such deplorable actions. These are certainly not issues that I am a stranger to, sadly. That is a very unfortunate reality, but it is the reality, so I felt it was important to get up and put a few words on the record in support of the fact that we need to do better by the people who put their lives on the line for this great country under our proud Canadian flag.

It is very important to note that Conservatives have always said that members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace and that those who have not experienced that while wearing the uniform deserve justice. We have heard lots of Conservatives raise personal examples, some very personal, of where that has not taken place recently or over the course of many years and, sadly, many decades. It is time to deliver a system that works better for victims and does not protect the bad actors in our system. We have so many systems now in this country that are focused on protecting the wrong people, and victims are left behind. This is just one example, but it is an important one that needs to be addressed.

While we certainly support the recommendations and support addressing the system to ensure that there is justice for folks who have experienced this type of trauma within the Canadian Armed Forces, we believe that Bill C-11 requires careful study at committee. That is why we are putting words on the record now in debate. The government, which has taken so much time to deliver a bill on this issue, continues to question why the Conservatives are speaking to it. It is because we have important questions that the Liberals need time to answer. We know they are not the most expeditious when it comes to investigating concerns that are raised by Canadians, particularly by the official opposition, and when it comes to the legislation they put forward.

We are putting them on the record now so that when the bill gets to committee, we sincerely hope, the Liberals may have some answers. I just previously raised a question for a Liberal member who, to her credit, admitted she had no idea what the answer was. I asked why the bill would treat crimes differently on Canadian soil than when our armed forces personnel are deployed. I credit the member for her honesty, but members who are speaking to the bill from the governing party, which put forward the legislation, should likely know the answers to questions before they get up to deliver remarks in the House of Commons.

That said, a couple of the concerns we have are about the civilian courts and their capacity to handle the cases. We understand that they may be, and in fact likely are, more experienced in dealing with these types of cases, but the courts are already backlogged. Time and time again, cases of serious violent offences, whether they be sexual in nature or cases of violent behaviour, run up against the Jordan framework, where the perpetrators are getting off on their charges because the courts cannot get through the process fast enough to have cases heard and verdicts delivered.

If we would now be adding more cases into the civilian court system, what provisions would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the court system could handle the additional workload coming its way? The Liberal government has been silent on that front, which is a concern, because if the Liberals are promising that the cases would be heard in a more effective manner, they need to put the resources behind the bill and streamline the processes to ensure that the cases would not get thrown out because of the Jordan framework.

Why would the legislation cover only domestic cases? I raise that again because it is an important point. The military police would be dealing with fewer cases overall, so that speaks to a potential lack of training or a lack of experience in dealing with cases as time goes on, yet they would still be called upon to do cases overseas. What standards and what training and expertise requirements would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the military police keep their standards up and in fact improve them while investigating cases overseas?

This can be challenging at the best of times when there are different jurisdictions and in many cases different nations and citizenships that are involved when such cases take place on multilateral operations, such as the ongoing deployment in Latvia. Soldiers from CFB Shilo in my constituency just completed a six-month stint in Latvia. Where does that leave the military police and their capacity?

Current crime stats are on the rise domestically under the Liberal government; we know that is a fact. We do not anticipate demand going down; in fact it would likely increase for civilian courts if they would be handling military penalties and cases. It could also mean that the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies under Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, where people who commit violent sexual offences are allowed to serve out their sentence on house arrest, may be allowed to do for military cases as well should they all move to the civilian system.

On a very small base, like the one in my constituency, there could be people living just down the street from their perpetrator on house arrest while their case goes through the court system and after conviction. We find that completely unacceptable in terms of the scope and impact it would have on the victims, who should be our priority. The Liberals have failed on the domestic civilian front, and we are very concerned they will fail again, as they have been failing, the victims within our Canadian Armed Forces.

I think we have raised some significant concerns that the Liberals have failed to provide any reasonable answer for, and that is why it is important that we thoroughly debate the bill, both here at second reading and at committee.

I want to be very clear that we want equal treatment for victims in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to ensure that there is commonality across the board, and we want to make sure that victims are treated with the respect, the dignity and the justice they deserve.

Military Justice Modernization Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for her work with veterans. When she is at the national defence committee, she always has a lot to contribute to the discussion.

I would like to ask the member whether she has some of the concerns Conservatives have, which are that the civilian criminal justice system has been undermined by the Liberals, and because of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, when someone is charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual human trafficking, they can serve their sentence under house arrest.

Would the requirements for lax sentencing given out by the civil courts, whether provincial or federal, undermine the ability to get justice for victims of military sexual trauma as we move cases from the military court to civilian courts?

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of the people of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime, which has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba west district RCMP found that over an 18-month period, four offenders in Swan River were responsible for 239 offences.

The petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies like Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, which forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back onto the streets. The petitioners of Swan Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that criminals can stay behind bars. That is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

I support the good people of Swan River.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have unleashed a crime wave in Niagara like we have never seen before. It has gotten so bad that the Niagara Regional Police Service is reminding people to do a nighttime routine. They call it the 9 p.m. routine: “It’s 9pm, Niagara. Have you completed your #9pmRoutine? Ensure all your valuables are secure, cars, doors and windows are locked, and alarms are activated if you have them.”

This falls on the heels of Toronto police and York police telling people to leave their keys by the front door and lock themselves in the closet while criminals steal from their home. The only thing they did not say was to leave a full tank of gas, and cookies at the door.

This is happening as Liberals keep telling Canadians, “You've never had it so good.” Let me remind folks of the Liberal record. Liberal Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent crimes. Bill C-75 requires judges to release accused offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

Canadians live in fear as criminals roam the streets knowing they can do whatever they want to whomever they want and still be out on bail before the ink on their paperwork is even dry.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I volunteered at the Cambridge Legion for several years, and I am always proud to support our veterans and those serving in our armed forces. We all know that veterans put so much on the line for our country, and all they want is support from our government, but the Liberals have passed legislation like Bill C-5, allowing criminals convicted of sexual assault to serve their sentences at home. In a military context, that could mean that right around the corner from their attacker on a small base, some could still reside.

Does the minister agree that we should repeal Bill C-5, stop soft-on-crime policies and protect not only CAF victims but all victims of sexual misconduct?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 reduced the conditions on the principle of restraint, allowing those who commit sexual offences to be released on bail very easily. It allows them to be repeat offenders. That will now permeate the Canadian Armed Forces, as well, because of the soft-on-crime approach taken by the Liberals. With Bill C-5, they got rid of a lot of the mandatory minimums so that repeat sexual offenders can now serve their sentences at home. That includes sexual assault, sexual exploitation and sexual interference.

What is the purpose if those who are committing these crimes are allowed to continue to serve in the Canadian Forces at their leisure?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the shadow minister for national defence, I am always honoured to stand in this place to talk about the great work of the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and how we can do more to support them, which is what Bill C-11 is trying to do.

The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect Canada, protect our citizens, as well as to protect those who serve us. There has been a rapid escalation of threats, and what we are facing in Canada is continuing to evolve. There is Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. There is the ongoing conflict we are seeing with Hamas first attacking Israel and now Israel's clearing operation to neutralize the terrorists in the Gaza Strip. There is the ongoing escalation we are experiencing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait as the People's Liberation Army Navy of China continues to escalate in that region, using air power, as well as resources and its coast guard to exercise its power in the region but ignoring international rules such as UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Those hostile powers want our resources, whether in the Arctic or our maritime domain, and they want to be within striking distance of our continent. We have to do more to protect ourselves here and invest in our military. This means supporting those who serve us. As Conservatives, we take our national security very seriously and want to make sure we always put that first and foremost. This is why we have to invest in the people, in their kit and in the training they need to undertake to deal with the hybrid warfare, the asymmetrical warfare, we are experiencing around the world.

First and foremost, Conservatives have always said and believed that those who serve, who proudly put on the uniform, are the best of the best Canada has to offer. They deserve to have a respectful workplace that is free of discrimination, racism, sexual misconduct, and abuse of authority and position. All members deserve to be respected. We also believe that the victims, those who are dealing with military sexual trauma, deserve justice. We hope this is going to culminate in the move from the military justice system to the civilian system, if the capacity is there and it would actually result in prosecutions and true justice for the victims of sexual trauma in the military.

It has been years: The Liberal government has been in power for 10 years. There have actually been three reports done. The first report came out in 2015, and it is interesting to note that the only time the current Minister of National Defence and I have had an interchange in the House on military sexual misconduct was when he was a member of the third party and the Liberals were sitting way down in that far corner. I was the parliamentary secretary for defence, and he asked a question about what steps we were taking. At that time, we had initiated the Madam Justice Deschamps report, and Justice Deschamps had made 10 recommendations.

Then of course there was an election, and that report sat on the corner of the desk of both former chief of the defence staff Jon Vance and former minister of defence Harjit Sajjan and collected dust. They did nothing during that time. There was then the Jon Vance scandal and all of that, and I will talk about that a bit later.

We know that through the process, the Liberals finally took action. There was the Arbour report and now the Fish report, which brought about some of the things that would happen with Bill C-11. However, it has taken 10 years to get to where we are today. For 10 long years, the Liberals sat on their hands and did nothing to actually change the National Defence Act and the military justice system under it.

When we look at Bill C-11, we are concerned that it would potentially open the door for more political interference. There would be an opportunity for partisan-style appointments, such as the Liberals' giving more power to the minister of national defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions. That would not happen in the normal system in Canada because it would be considered political interference. The Liberals would also be changing the appointment process in that the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal are all now going to be appointed by the Governor in Council rather than the minister. We know that when things go into the PMO and into cabinet, things become quite political and partisan.

Conservatives will continue to support those in the armed forces, and we are going to make sure that we are carefully studying Bill C-11 to ensure that concerns from all stakeholders, including those in the military justice system, those in the defence industry and, especially, those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as victims' rights groups, and that their voices are heard when we study this at committee.

As I said earlier, Bill C-11 is the former Bill C-66, with minor tweaks in language, translations and interpretation of certain clauses: 6, 67 and 68. It would amend the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of most offences of a sexual nature from the military justice system to civilian authorities, including the courts, municipal police, provincial police and the RCMP. This would depend on the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, with the exception of a sexual offence that takes place outside Canada when troops are deployed. In that case, those who are deployed would have access to the current regulations under the military justice system and the National Defence Act, and military police and the JAG, the judge advocate general's office, would still undertake those investigations with the national investigative service.

We know that section 273 of the National Defence Act provides for that. It has provided for the way that this has been dealt with historically, but there is concern about whether the civilian courts would have the capacity to take on extra cases in those jurisdictions, from the standpoint of both the court level and the police level. What are they going to do with historic cases? We already know of historic cases that have been transferred into the civilian court system that have not resulted in convictions. Instead, we have seen high-level flag officers and general officers who were found innocent or had their proceedings stayed; we have seen cases that the Crown rejected because of the way the evidence was collected by the military police and the national investigative service of the Canadian Armed Forces. We question whether that provides the justice that the victims were looking for. We definitely want to make sure that all are given a fair trial and that we support those who were erroneously charged in the first place.

What are we doing about the issue of capacity, as was previously asked by my colleague, within the military police and national investigative service when they have to do investigations outside Canada? How do they coordinate with provincial, municipal and RCMP police agencies when we are talking about things that happened on base and will require investigations done by local authorities?

Bill C-11 seeks to increase the independence within the military, one of the recommendations coming from Madam Arbour and Justice Fish, so we would avoid a situation like what happened with Jon Vance. Because he was chief of the defence staff and everybody reported to him, nobody was prepared to take on that investigation and prosecute, including the then minister of national defence, who actually had authority over the chief of the defence staff. Harjit Sajjan refused to accept evidence and walked away.

We know there are questions about how this would all work. The provost marshal, who has traditionally been a colonel, would be made a general, so we are seeing a creep of the number of flag officers again.

Conservatives question the term limits. There is an inconsistency here on how people are being appointed, now being done through order in council in the Prime Minister's Office, and we know there is going to be the ongoing issue of the length of terms: Some are for four years; some are going to be eligible for reappointment whereas some are not. Some are for seven years, and some are for 10 years. It just gets a little confusing in terms of how this is all going to work.

When we talk about the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, we just want to make sure there is a criterion as to what we want to see for qualifications for service in positions that normally would have reported to the vice-chief of the defence staff and/or the judge advocate general. Those things are going to give these guys their independence, so they report straight to the minister and to the government. There are questions about chain of command and how that is going to work. However, these are things we can look at in committee. The same is true for the director of defence counsel services.

Consistency is important here. Qualifications are important in these appointments. We want to make sure the partisanship that happens within the Prime Minister's Office does not percolate into the Canadian Armed Forces through those who serve the forces.

The minister talked about trust. As I suggested in my question for him, Liberals cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to talking about bad political appointments. If we look at 2022, the Liberals appointed Laith Marouf to do a project. It turned out he was an anti-Semite, but they were supposed to be working on diversity. The Liberals appointed Martine Richard as the Ethics Commissioner. She had to drop out because she was related to one of the cabinet ministers, who currently sits today. It was a complete conflict of interest. They appointed Birju Dattani as the human rights commissioner; he turned out to be anti-Semitic. Of course, it was another terrible appointment by the Liberals.

Justin Trudeau completely ignored the Ethics Commissioner's warning about appointing Annette Verschuren as the head of the green slush fund. This resulted in a huge scandal of over $2.1 billion that she and her cohorts were able to take from that Liberal slush fund and stuff into their own pockets. We should not forget the current Prime Minister recently appointed Doug Guzman as CEO to the defence investment agency. It turns out Doug Guzman is a former banking buddy of the Prime Minister's from Goldman Sachs.

I do not know if we need to have these close personal friends and partisan Liberal bagmen actually getting these types of appointments. I would hate to see this being the case when we look at appointments within the national defence apparatus, when we look at those who are going to be in charge of our military justice system. That would not be fair.

The Liberals also cannot be trusted when it comes to criminal justice. They have been soft on crime right from the beginning. Bill C-75 brought in the whole principle of restraint, which puts the least onerous conditions on those who are seeking bail. This is where we get bail, not jail and repeat violent offenders going back on the street. Now, potentially, those who are committing sexual assaults within the Canadian Armed Forces will have access to that same lax and soft-on-crime approach the Liberals have implemented.

Bill C-5 is another reason we should not trust the Liberals when it comes to reforming the military justice system. The bill reformed the criminal justice system by repealing mandatory jail time and allowing very serious violent offenders to serve their sentences at home. This includes getting house arrest, not jail time, if they commit sexual assault, sexual interference or sexual exploitation. Those conditions are now going to be transferred from the military justice system, or the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, to the civilian system, which the Liberals have almost completely destroyed.

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to dealing with sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces; our members know that. Again, it has been 10 years since Madam Justice Deschamps brought forward her recommendations in her report, and they did nothing, which could have stymied this whole problem.

Take Jon Vance, who was CDS at the time. He started up, after the Liberals formed government, Operation Honour, which turned into a complete fiasco and did nothing to support victims, did nothing to stop sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and did not live up to the code of service discipline and the ethics that those who serve should be living up to.

As I said, we know that Minister Sajjan, at that time in 2018, refused the evidence of the sexual misconduct charge against Jon Vance. We know there are memos that went back and forth between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office on how they could cover this up to protect Jonathan Vance and, later, also protect Minister Sajjan for not acting upon evidence that was given to somebody who reported directly to him.

Gary Walbourne, who was the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman at the time, tried to provide that evidence and was pushed away. He was completely in the right because the only person who could deal with it in the chain of command was the Minister of National Defence. We know this went back and forth. We did an in-depth study of this in the Standing Committee on National Defence. I was vice-chair at the time, as I am vice-chair right now.

That was covered up by the Prime Minister's Office through Justin Trudeau, Katie Telford and Zita Astravas. They continued to cover up that sexual misconduct and protect the minister and Jon Vance, which is beyond me. At the end of the day, when it came to charging him and prosecuting within the civilian court, the government accepted the lesser charge of obstruction of justice. It never prosecuted on sexual misconduct and sexual assault. That, again, does not live up to victims' rights in any way, shape or form. The victims of Jon Vance still feel that they were never properly served or got the justice they deserved.

This went on. The defence committee was suspended for months on end. The chair of the committee, Karen McCrimmon, refused to hear testimony and motions. She kept suspending meetings. We were in the same meeting for three months and could not do our work as the defence committee, and we could not do our work as parliamentarians. I firmly believe that our privileges as parliamentarians were violated through that process.

We did find out, through that study, that the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's Office, former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Katie Telford were all aware of this over the entire three-year investigation.

To make things even worse, at the end of the day, even though Harjit Sajjan, the minister of defence at the time, knew about the sexual misconduct and the gravity of the problem that was happening within the Canadian Armed Forces, the government still gave Jon Vance a raise as the chief of the defence staff. That, I think, was just adding insult to injury.

We know that when it comes to political interference, the Liberals cannot be trusted. We can look at the ongoing F-35 debacle and how they continue to politicize the procurement. Our Royal Canadian Air Force and our Canadian Armed Forces right up to the chief of the defence staff today have all said that this is the jet they need and that we should buy more of them. Of course, the Liberals continue to play political football and kick the can and delay that procurement, which is only undermining the ability of the Royal Canadian Air Force to protect us here at home and work alongside our allies.

We know about things like cash for access and the wealthy Chinese billionaires that Justin Trudeau was involved with. We know they tried to cover up the expensive holiday that the former prime minister took on his private island. The ethics commissioners found multiple breaches. We know about the witch hunt that went after former vice-admiral Mark Norman back in 2018, which was politically motivated.

We cannot trust the Liberals. They have failed our Canadian Armed Forces. They have failed our brave women and men. Our warships continue to rust out. Our jets are worn out. The army has been hollowed out and our troops no longer feel like they are respected and honoured by the government.

When we really dig in and look at Liberal policies, it is a book of empty promises, like the 2017 defence policy and the defence policy update, which are all irrelevant. The government has allowed money to lapse. Because of this lack of respect for our forces, we have a recruitment problem. We are short over 13,000 troops today. Over 10,000 are undertrained and undeployable. Our forces are short 6,700 houses.

Conservatives will rectify all the mismanagement and wrongs of the Liberal government and serve our Canadian Armed Forces.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition on behalf on the constituents of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime, which has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba west district RCMP found that over an 18-month period, four offenders in Swan River were responsible for 239 offences.

The petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies like Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, which forces judges to release violent repeat offenders right back onto the streets. The petitioners in the Swan Valley want to see the end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that criminals can stay behind bars. That is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

I support the good people of Swan River.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after reflecting on the British Columbia example of decriminalizing illegal drugs, I completely agree that it was a terrible policy decision. We have seen the fallout in municipalities across Canada, including in Hamilton.

Bill C-5 is obviously problematic. Some of the sentencing restrictions on police when they are policing illegal drugs are problematic. Our government is committed to fixing what needs to be fixed.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, can the member acknowledge that when the Liberals changed Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, there was an increase in crime across our country? Will the member acknowledge that the action taken by the government, specifically in my province of British Columbia, to decriminalize hard drugs was one of the worst policy failures in the history of Canada?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, imagine for a moment a father sleeping peacefully at home with his wife and kids, when violent thugs kick in their door and break into their home. He does what any husband would do: He tries to protect his family. Then he is fatally shot and murdered. This is not a scene from a Hollywood production; this was the reality for Aleem Farooqi and his family in Vaughan when Aleem was gunned down defending his family, a true hero.

Imagine someone waking up in the morning in their home to find out that their car in the driveway, right below where their children sleep, was almost stolen the night before. That is what happened to me back in August of this year, and I am not special. This has happened to numerous people in Vaughan—Woodbridge and thousands of Canadians all across this country. In my community, everybody knows someone who has had a car stolen. In fact, in the last eight weeks, York Region has seen 296 vehicle thefts. How about gun violence? In the last eight weeks, we have had 10 shootings and a bank robbery.

Last month, I attended a press conference in Vaughan—Woodbridge, joined by the Leader of the Opposition, fellow Conservative members of Parliament and victims of crime, and we attempted to address this very issue. The message was clear. Something needs to be done. Something needs to change in this country.

For far too long now, I have heard horror stories in my community of citizens being terrorized, their homes being broken into, their cars getting broken into and their loved ones being fatally shot. People are genuinely afraid. They are afraid in their own homes and afraid in their own communities.

I was born and raised in Vaughan—Woodbridge, a place that has always been to me the perfect place to raise a family. In my youth and early adult life, it was a community where I felt safe, where people would walk around at night without fear. They would not worry if they had forgotten to lock their doors, and they would go to bed knowing they were safe in their own beds. However, over the last decade, that sense of security has been shattered.

My friends in my community no longer feel safe walking at night. When our youth go to school, they face threats of gun violence, stabbings and assaults. Our seniors are anxious, wondering if their cars will be on the driveway when they wake up in the morning. Just last Wednesday, two homes fell prey to shootings. The shootings happened only minutes apart, and both of these homes had been shot earlier the same month. That means the residents have now lived twice through violent attacks. Recently in Vaughan, three suspects were arrested for committing a series of home invasions, and two of these suspects were already out on bail.

What happened? The Liberals introduced bail reform with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, and these Liberal bail laws have completely broken our bail system.

What needs to change? Today, this is exactly what we are here to address. This is far from a partisan issue. Premiers, mayors, police associations, attorneys general and Canadians have been asking for the federal government to end catch-and-release bail laws like Bill C-75, a law that forces judges to apply the principle of restraint, which puts repeat violent offenders back on the streets, and Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes, including extortion with a firearm.

We all know the consequences. Since these laws were introduced, all across Canada, violent crime is up by 55%, firearm crime is up by 130%, extortion has skyrocketed by 330%, sexual assaults are up by 76% and homicides are up by 29%. In 2019, David Lametti, now the Prime Minister's right-hand man, passed Bill C-75, forcing judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions.

Today, the Conservatives have introduced a motion in the House of Commons. For people tuning in from my community, the motion reads as follows:

That, given that,

(a) violent crime is up 55% under the Liberal government and repeat offenders continue to be released because of Liberal catch and release laws; and

(b) the Liberal government promised to pass criminal justice reform six months ago but has failed to do so;

in order to keep repeat offenders in jail and keep Canadians safe, the House is of the opinion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, also known as the Jail Not Bail Act, must pass and is committed to sitting extended hours, holding an expeditious committee study and undertaking such other procedural measures as may be necessary to pass it at the earliest opportunity.

The Conservatives are here to say that in order to stop this chaos on our streets, keep repeat violent offenders in jail and keep Canadians safe, we must pass my hon. colleague from Oxford's bill, the jail not bail act, Bill C-242.

What would the jail not bail act do? First, it would repeal the Liberal principle of restraint and replace it with a directive that the primary consideration is the protection and safety of the public. Second, it would introduce a new major offence category with reverse onus bail conditions for firearm, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault charges. Third, it would strengthen bail laws by mandating judges to consider an accused's full criminal history and would prevent anyone from getting bail who was convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years and is charged with a major offence while out on bail. Fourth, it would prohibit anybody with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor, would require judges to enforce bail conditions on guarantors and would require non-residents to surrender their passport upon request.

Do not take our word for it. Take it from Cait Alexander, a survivor of domestic violence who runs the organization End Violence Everywhere: “The Jail Not Bail Act is therefore more than legislation—it is an essential corrective—a lifeline capable of disrupting the revolving door of abuse and saving innocent lives.”

How about the Toronto Police Association? It stated:

The proposed ideas will put victims and communities first, restoring the balance that is desperately needed at a time when youth violence and gun crimes are out of control and innocent victims are paying the ultimate price. We would encourage all levels of government to set aside their political differences and do what's right.

After the horrific murder of Aleem Farooqi in my community of Vaughan, Vaughan's mayor, Steven Del Duca, called on the federal government for urgent bail system reform, stating, “I am calling on the Prime Minister to show leadership and to urgently overhaul the system”.

I will repeat that this is not a partisan issue. People's lives are at risk every single day the government delays. the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have spent the last six months spiralling, dithering and failing to act. In that time, violent crime has surged and innocent Canadians have paid the ultimate price.

I have heard Liberal members say they are going to introduce stronger bail laws, except they have not, even though we know what is needed because we have heard it from every single corner of this country. What we do not need is more Liberal reforms. We need to scrap Liberal bail and restore safety on our streets.

If the Prime Minister and Liberal members of the House are serious about restoring peace to our communities, they will back this bill, reverse their disastrous bail laws and tip the scales of justice back in favour of innocent Canadians. If they do not want to support the bill for political purposes, they can abstain and let it pass so people in this country can have a sense of security again.

Every day, Canadians wake up and see another headline about a violent shooting. Tomorrow, many Canadians will wake up and their car will be stolen from their driveway. We have a job to do on behalf of the people who sent us here.

The government's primary responsibility is to keep Canadians safe. It is time to put victims ahead of criminals and violent criminals behind bars, where they belong. That is why I encourage every member of this House to support my colleague's bill, Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. It is very important that we stand up for our communities and the people of this country and put repeat violent offenders behind bars.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the question. It is because the Liberals broke our justice system with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, making house arrest the new norm and bringing in the revolving door justice system that we have now. They broke our justice system. Their bail reform is what caused this catch-and-release system, which has allowed crime to ravage our communities.

We are asking why the Liberals will not scrap Liberal bail.

Business of the House

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Thursday question, when we ask for the government's agenda for the upcoming week.

During the election, the Prime Minister made a lot of promises. He said that he was going to fix Liberal bail. Specifically, he was going to fix the mess that Justin Trudeau, as well as the vast majority of the Liberals, created by passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Would the House leader inform the House if the Liberals will finally bring in legislation, in the upcoming week, to fix the disaster they have created in the bail system in this country?

During the election, the Prime Minister promised that, by July 21 of this year, months ago, he would have a deal with Trump regarding our trade deal with the United States. Over the last number of weeks, we have reports that we have the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. We have the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. The jobs crisis is worsening in this country. We have seen the announcements from Imperial Oil of 900 job losses in Calgary. We have had the Kap Paper announcement here in Ontario, as well as GM's announcement that it is going to discontinue production of some of its models in Canada and move those jobs to the United States.

Will the House leader finally update the House as to whether the Prime Minister will fulfill his commitment to get a deal with the United States in the coming week?